The sign
systems used indicated that the learners were aware that different
kinds of audiences might encounter their writing, so dyads anticipated
this through their use of multiple signs such as video, graphics,
or audio. Rosenblatt (1978) described a similar phenomenon through
transactional reading and writing theory, which sought to anticipate
the voice and reaction of the reader as the writer authored. The sign
systems indicated patterns that were repeated across both projects.
This suggested that the sign systems used by the learners constructed
a code, organized the writing through the sign structure, suggested
choice, and related contrasts to convey a larger picture of the overall
meaning construction (Manning & Cullum-Swan, 1992; Smagorinsky
& O'Donnell-Allen, 1998).
Symbols and Social Relationships
The perceptions of the social relationships between the dyads were
influenced through the sophisticated ways some learners navigated
the use of hypermedia. Cultural capitol was held by those who could
manage sign systems that were very technical. Sean held this level
of status within the class and other learners cited him as the "techie"
of the class. Sign systems used by the children served multiple purposes:
they represented the writer's understanding, the signs evaluated the
existing cultural milieu, and created social relationships in the
classroom (Pea, 1994; Wertsch, 1991). It is suggested that one reason
the children limited the breadth of their writing may have been because
of all they were trying to socially and cognitively manage, layered
with learning new ways to write (Lemke, 1998). Many more events were
taking place during these authoring sessions than simply reader-response
activities and weekly computer time.
This study was exploratory in nature and not conclusive. The perceptions
of expert writer as technology expert and nonlinear writing conventions
and tools suggested some understanding of children's literacy perceptions
as they authored with hypermedia. The perceptions of authoring through
developmental writing processes along with the use of semiotic systems
and multiple ways to write provided insight into the children's perceptions
of their literacy development as they authored with hypermedia. In
understanding children's perceptions of literacy and technology as
a tool, greater understanding for constructing pedagogy and curriculum
that support new definitions of literacy may take place through new
research. Lastly, the study raised many new questions that implied
that research in the field of literacy and technology education is
at an exciting crossroads to gain a greater understanding for how
technology as a tool mediates literate thinking.
Limitations
Grounded theory can comprehensively help researchers build new theories;
however, the application of new theories to practice is not always
apparent. A study in a new area such as literacy and technology proposes
some new theory, but the aim of the theory is to continue the inquiry
and not to directly put new knowledge into practice. This is especially
true in trying to understand literacy and technology theory combined.
Meyer and Rose (1998) exemplified this point as they state, "
It takes time to figure out how to use a new technology-to discover
the valuable new uses implicit in the technology itself. At first,
people tend to use new devices as if they were just different versions
of something older and more familiar" (p.8). They cite the use
of the wireless telegraph as an example of this and this innovation
use actually turned out to be the present day radio. The point being
that initial research with new technologies often has a tendency to
appear as a new and improved version of the old when in fact with
more research it is something quite different.
This research explores children's literacy perceptions in authoring
with hypermedia tools as something different from traditional notions
of literacy. Because grounded theory is context bound and difficult
to replicate extending knowledge about how this might look in practice
is difficult and time consuming. Some suggest that further study from
a teacher research perspective is the best way to understand new definitions
of literacy and this work may only provide a starting point for such
research.
Implications and Conclusions
These findings suggest new ways that children understand literacy
processes that take place both in and outside the school setting.
Bolter's (1998) definition of hypertextual literacy emphasizing literacy
processes that include both alphabetic text and a wider range of symbolic
elements to mean could be suggested as a model for literacy learning
which is broader. This new definition of literacy learning is useful
as children engage in meaning construction through reader response
with technology tools. A larger cohort of children in further research
would help to explore these findings of changing literacy definitions
from a greater sociocultural perspective. These findings also suggest
that children see writing with electronic tools as very different
from traditional school writing tasks (Allington & Cunningham,
1995; Labbo, 1996). The children expressed that writing with hypermedia
tools was useful because they not only practiced their writing but
they also learned new programs and ways to write. Ways to write was
a finding that included nonlinear text such as graphics, video, and
audio.
New definitions
of literacy were embedded in the children's perceptions of what literate
people can do. They suggested that literate people can not only read
and write, but they can also manage technology in sophisticated ways.
These "techies" were described as people who could write
with both hands, and utilize the computer as part of their meaning
construction process while writing. If an individual was an expert
with the ability to use digital tools then they were also good writers
and very literate people. This was also consistent with Beach and
Lundell's (1998) study that indicated that technological knowledge
within authoring situations was extremely powerful for those who could
manage it. Alvermann, Moon and Hagood (1999) noted a similar trend
related to ways the children in their study described those who were
literate. Adolescents in the study who could navigate more than eight
windows between the desktop and the browser while participating in
on-line conversations were viewed as highly literate because of their
ability to use technology in a layered way. Clearly, the children
in this research were beginning to understand the empowering effect
of technology and this contributed to their changing definitions of
literacy (Fey, 1994; 1997). Those who held this knowledge were considered
in their authoring groups as experts and able to write well.
Literate people, according to the children in this study, can no longer
simply read and write to be considered literate. Literate people must
also create and mean with digital tools. Wells (1997) explains that
learners now find themselves between convention and invention. They
must learn to write with all the linear conventions that are part
of our language, and also they must utilize invention as a way to
mean. Invention involved the use of nonlinear text juxtaposed in unique
ways to suggest new text.
In understanding children's perceptions of literacy and technology
as a mix between convention and invention this research suggests that
children already understand the complex ways that text can be layered
and manipulated to convey greater meaning. Clearly, they viewed their
literacy growth as tied directly to their understanding of digital
tools along with other elements of literacy knowledge. Given these
perceptions new research might begin to better understand how younger
children begin to think about the conventions of writing as they learn
to write and use computers before beginning school.
The children in this study gave some insight into how early literacy
learning played a part in learning to write in new ways with regard
to writing conventions and tools. The children reflected on how the
linear and nonlinear writing processes differed; however, they were
already fluent writers within the realms of linear writing. They understood
a great deal about linear writing and based their perceptions on this
knowledge. This idea leads to an interesting question in considering
new research related to this study, in that, what are early literacy
learners' perceptions of linear and nonlinear writing as both of these
processes are emerging? How might these processes interact with each
other? And how do young emergent writers perceive their literacy learning
growth while authoring with both linear and nonlinear text? The writing
continuum for these young writers might include nonlinear dictation
and text free web sites that could utilize many sign systems. These
questions stemming from the findings of this research could form the
basis of new research with emergent literacy learners to gain a greater
understanding of how linear and nonlinear writing conventions may
differ as defined by children.
Lastly, the children's changing definitions of literacy with regard
to technology provide some troubling data related to their perceptions
of what they think literate people and good writers need to know.
According to the children in this study acting as "techies"
implied that one was a good writer. This notion suggests that the
children see the changing definitions of literacy as possibly phasing
out the need for traditional writing conventions. It is also troubling
in terms of access to technology and those who are most likely to
have access. This may be a troubling implication for children in low
socioeconomic status homes.
Given these new questions it is most obvious that literacy and technology
research is just beginning to understand the consequences of integrating
technology into the literacy curriculum. Clearly, more ongoing research
is needed in the field to better understand how children perceive
the use of digital tools as influencing their overall literacy perspectives.
